University of Virginia Library

There was a time, in the days of Pope and Dodsley, when editors 'modernized' the spelling of Elizabethan and Jacobean printed plays without thinking twice about the matter, but in more recent years, especially after the first volume of McKerrow's critical edition of Nashe in 1904 and the first issues of the Malone Society's diplomatic reprints in 1907, editors have seemed to prefer the 'old spelling' of original first editions with just as little thought.[1] While the Malone Society has issued its reprints for over fifty years, its editorial policies have remained unchanged in all essentials; and its list of subscribers continues to grow. At the present moment scholars are engaged on large-scale, critical editions of the plays of Peele, Greene, Dekker, Heywood and Massinger, and all have chosen to prepare old-spelling editions. So far the only old-spelling editions of Shakespeare's complete works have been facsimiles or diplomatic reprints, but work is now in progress on an old-spelling, critical edition. The decision made by McKerrow and others in the early years of this century has become an orthodox decision, and few editors seem to question its validity; apart from the more or less popular editions of Shakespeare and some text-book anthologies, very few modern-spelling texts of Elizabethan or Jacobean plays are now being published.

When a technical decision of this kind remains orthodox for more than fifty years it might be supposed that those years were a time of modest, conservative effort in the particular branch of studies involved. But this is far from the truth. Since McKerrow's first editorial work there have been great advances in textual studies; editors now know far more about Elizabethan printing practices and Elizabethan dramatic documents, and, on some aspects of their task, they now know that

less is known than was once assumed. Advances in knowledge and technique have affected editorial principles in almost all aspects; the preference for 'old spelling' is exceptional in being unchanging and almost unchallenged. Yet if McKerrow's decision on this point is still valid, it must be valid for reasons which need to be re-stated in the light of new facts and new editorial principles; if his decision is now out-of-date or in need of modification, a new orthodoxy will be established only after much consultation and scholarly debate. After fifty busy, successful years there is good cause for reconsidering the rationale of the most basic and seemingly obvious practices; the choice of old or new spelling should be made in the light of today's knowledge and what can be guessed of tomorrow's requirements.

The choice cannot be completely isolated from other choices, as whether or not to retain the original punctuation, capitals, type-variation and lay-out. Nor can the choice be made without considering the readers for whom a projected edition is intended. The problem may best be examined by reference to two distinct kinds of old-spelling editions, each exemplified by a particular example, and by confining the discussion to Elizabethan and Jacobean printed plays, omitting the special problems of manuscript originals.